Do Abortion Laws Protect the Life of the Mother?

Since the 2022 Dobbs decision, the mainstream media have disseminated the myth that state pro-life laws proverbially tie doctors’ hands when treating pregnant women who have life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies.

The Washington Post distortedly claimed that “doctors say such restrictions will complicate medical decisions for those who are pregnant, increasing the risk of death in a country that already has the highest rates of maternal mortality in the industrialized world.” 

The claim that abortion laws increase the risk of maternal death is an utter falsehood promoted by the media to strike fear in the hearts and minds of the public that women will not be able to access life-saving medical treatment. 

“Concern for the mother has never been a priority for supporters of abortion nor Planned Parenthood. They have been complicit in covering up rape and human trafficking with little regard for the mother,” said CatholicVote Director of Government Affairs Tom McClusky. “This current deception is meant to mislead the public with no regard for actual health risks to the mother.”

No state abortion laws prohibit the evaluation of life-threatening conditions or the provision of life-saving care in any potentially fatal situations that may require the separation of mother and child. Examples of these situations include, but are not limited to, severe gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, maternal heart disease, critical illness requiring intensive care, and cancer. 

In certain drastic situations, even the teachings of the Catholic Church – which condemn abortion as an “intrinsic evil” – allow for medical interventions to save a mother’s life that result in the loss of her child. The principle allowing for such actions is the “principle of double effect,” developed by St. Thomas Aquinas and adopted into the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As the National Catholic Bioethics Center explains in one statement:

The classic case of a difficult pregnancy to which this principle can be applied is the pregnant woman who has advanced uterine cancer. The removal of the cancerous uterus will result in the death of the baby but it would be permissible under the principle of double effect.

…1) The act itself is good; it is the removal of a diseased organ. 2) All that one intends is the removal of the diseased organ. One does not want the death of the baby, either as a means or an end. Nonetheless, one sees that the unborn child will die as a result of the removal of the diseased organ. 3) The good action, the healing of the woman, arises from the removal of the diseased uterus, not from the regrettable death of the baby which is foreseen and unintended. 4) The unintended and indirect death of the child is not disproportionate to the good which is done, which is saving the mother’s life.

Such interventions, recognized as morally licit by the Church, are also protected under the law in the pro-life states that have taken measures to protect the unborn in the wake of Dobbs. 

“When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise, AAPLOG (American Association for Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists) believes in ‘treatment to save the mother’s life,’ including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent,” said the AAPLOG in a statement: 

This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.

Perhaps the most common argument for life-of-the-mother exceptions involves ectopic pregnancies, which constitute between 1% and 2% of pregnancies in the United States. 

Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants in a place other than the uterus, such as the fallopian tubes. Such cases can be treated through laparoscopic surgery or the medicine called methotrexate. Ectopic pregnancies usually lead to the death of the baby and, if left untreated, possibly the death of the mother. 

Because ectopic pregnancies threaten the life of the mother, their proper treatment is not the same as getting an abortion and has never been considered as such in the pro-life laws of any state. 

At one time, Planned Parenthood acknowledged that treating an ectopic pregnancy is not the same as having an abortion. Following the Dobbs decision, the organization manipulated the language on their website to mislead women into believing that there is no distinction between the two procedures, and that seeking treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is now widely illegal. 

That’s right. Planned Parenthood is deliberately deceiving women dealing with severe pregnancy complications into thinking that they cannot access life-saving treatment. 

In such complex and rare cases, doctors are supposed to make their best judgments based on what will protect the life of the mother, even if it involves a difficult decision that results in the death of the baby. 

According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Physicians can make this determination based on their ‘reasonable medical judgment,’ a standard very common in the medical profession and used for any case involving medical malpractice litigation.” 

“While some laws contain definitions and exceptions that more explicitly speak to certain situations, each law reviewed does not prevent mothers from receiving the medical care necessary,” the Charlotte Lozier Institute states. “A plain reading of any of these statutes easily refutes the false and dangerous misinformation being spread by pro-abortion activists.” 

When it comes to saving the life of the mother, doctors do not need to fear a felony conviction when their intervention results in the death of the baby. 

Again, from the Charlotte Lozier Institute:

Further, none of the laws reviewed prohibit a medical professional from acting as necessary when facing a life-threatening medical emergency; therefore, under these laws medical professionals can exercise reasonable medical judgment and as outlined by the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) guidance, are not required to delay necessary care and treatment to a mother.

Women who have been denied treatment for their life-threatening conditions or simply told to abort their children are ultimately victims of medical malpractice. For some doctors who fear malpractice lawsuits, abortion is just a lazy “solution” to a complicated pregnancy. (See also CatholicVote’s article on rape and incest cases.)

There are alternatively many doctors who specialize in such cases and can be sought for second opinions. 

With the help of their doctors, women facing life-threatening situations should be enabled to make well-informed decisions about their health and the life of their babies without being misled by fearmongering pro-abortion advocates and organizations.